memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Federation starships
Two pages Why do we suddenly have two pages with Federation ships? We have this one *and* Fed Ships?? -- Harry 14:28, 29 Nov 2003 (PST) : Fixed. Consider this part of the growing process... I'm working with Mark on title styles and the like. -- MinutiaeMan 15:01, 29 Nov 2003 (PST) :: I don't understand why we have some of the Constitutions with their registries, and then on the Conny page, there's only question marks. I can understand why, but I think this would confuse a fair number of people... Mariner 3:50, 16 DEC 2003 (EST) TOS Tech Manual Ships Based on discussions in other articles, I've removed the list of most of the Federation-class ships in the big list. I left the Entente (which is definitely canon) and the Federation as the class ship. -- MinutiaeMan 15:41, 17 Jan 2004 (PST) :Well, that still leaves the problem of the overlapping registries, especially where the Oberth and Hermes are concerned. I am curious though, should we use the tpc&s 17910131&f 71310331&m 725001365&r 17610033463#17610033463|Registry Suggestion}} Masaso came up with, or simply ignore them? I for one would prefer to have them used, because the site already considers TAS "canon," and that's where the letter-registry idea originally came from... --Mariner 10:51, 28 Mar 2004 (PST) :: I haven't read this registry suggestion yet, but I think we should not use any inofficial system - at least not without very major changes to the canon policy. Even without such obvious "deviations" from canon, some "additions" are already creeping in. -- Cid Highwind 14:30, 28 Mar 2004 (PST) For our purposes (i.e. Memory Alpha), any Hermes-class ship not mentioned on-screen doesn't exist. That means that there's no registry conflict. It only exists if you grandfather FJ's entire Hermes-class list into the Trek canon — and I don't think we want to do that. -- Dan Carlson 15:59, 28 Mar 2004 (PST) Footnotes? What about the double asterisks that are marking some entries? They aren't explained anywhere on the page. At least some of them seem to mark "disputable" information, in which case I'd prefer dropping it altogether (at least from this list - it could appear as a note on the articles about those ships). This also includes the (yet unmarked) registry of the assumed first USS Dauntless. -- Cid Highwind 09:30, 28 Mar 2004 (PST) :Those are leftovers from the list's incarnation in my own Starfleet Reference Databank. They're supposed to indicate uncertain or debatable data points. You can go ahead and remove them if you like. -- Dan Carlson 15:59, 28 Mar 2004 (PST) For the moment, I just included a note on top of the page stating this. All other information is certain? -- Cid Highwind 23:32, 28 Mar 2004 (PST) USS Cygnus? Where does that ship come from? Where does the Cygnus class come from? The USS Columbia was a Hermes class vessel... --BlueMars 15:09, Jun 13, 2004 (CEST) :The Cygnus class is a fandom invention based on the FJ Tech Manual. I've deleted it from the list. -- Dan Carlson 16:03, 13 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Well, we list the USS Federation because the USS Entente was mentioned in TMP, and we know it is listed as Federation-class in the Franz Joseph tech manual. The USS Columbia, also mentioned in that film, is listed as Cygnus-class. (not Hermes-class as was previously listed in this list). I thought we were only adding elements of the manual that had some basis onscreen, this does. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:59, 13 Jun 2004 (CEST) :Uh, no... last time I looked at the FJ book, it said "Hermes class", not Cygnus class. Cygnus is a fan invention referring to the individual sub-classes, not the overall class. -- Dan Carlson 18:41, 13 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::TO:01:04:15 Scout Class, the Columbia is listed in the third paragraph (MK-VIIB) the Cygnus NCC-617 is given as the class vessel (indicated by the * ), that makes the USS Columbia Cygnus-class -- Kobi 18:50, 13 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::::beaten to my comment, thanks Kobi. This is from the original text, not any fandom retelling. There are clearlly marked sections for each individual class--Captain Mike K. Bartel 18:53, 13 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::::And it hasn't been a long time since i was in the FJ book, it is open in front of me. Page TO:01:04:14 is a schematic of the Hermes-class, labeled CLASS I SCOUT. The next page is TO:01:04:15 and is labeled SCOUT CLASS authorized construction. There are three separate class sections, ::::* The MK-VII-class authorized on stardate 0965 ::::** The class ship identified by the asterisk is the Hermes, the only canonically mentioned and registered ship here is the NCC-595 Revere, and the design is seen onscreen in Star Trek II ::::* The MK-VIIa-class authorized on stardate 3669 ::::** The class ship identified by the asterisk is the Monoceros, none of the ships have a screen mention ::::* The MK-VIIb-class authorized on stardate 5099, specially outfitted for regular duty as command and diplomatic couriers. ::::** The class ship identified by the asterisk is the Cygnus NCC-617. NCC-621 Columbia is listed here, and both the asterisk notation and the above descriptive text state that this is a different class than the other two. ::::This information is frequently misinterpreted, but i believe a number of users here share my interpretation, that if we are going to consider data from the Tech Manual as a reference to these canonically mentioned ships, we should at least do it accurately. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:22, 13 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::::::The fact that the ships that follow have a suffixed class number, but remain in the Hermes class list, seems to indicate to me that they are variants or sub-classes of the Hermes, not an entirely new class. The Columbia should therefore, IMO, be a Hermes-class vessel, variant II (or b). -- Michael Warren 20:11, 14 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::::::To be honest, after reading the discussion above, both classes seem to be equally non-canon. We shouldn't have a discussion about which of these class names to list, but remove that one completely instead (use Unknown). -- Cid Highwind 21:12, 14 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::::Except that the validity of the Star Fleet Technical Manual for use in articles has not yet been ruled on. I started a poll about this days ago at Memory Alpha talk:Canon Policy, but no-one else has responded as of yet. -- Michael Warren 21:16, 14 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::::::Well, Undecided basically means No because we have to fall back to our generic canon policy. I missed that poll, though, and will add my opinion later. -- Cid Highwind 21:41, 14 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::Also the case is different here. Obviously the Technical Manual was the source for the USS Cygnus (as were the Entente, Revere and Monitor), Technical Manual: 1977, TMP: 1979. It was taken from the book not the movie as it was in the follow up TMs, that is why it has to be included. -- Kobi 21:22, 14 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::::::With the policy currently in use, this doesn't make a difference. If this is the source that was used, it should definitely be noted in the Background section of that ships article - but not in this list. -- Cid Highwind 21:41, 14 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I have no problem with using the starship classes from the FJTM, since it's been pretty well established already that they were used in the computer display screens for ST2 and ST3. However, I'm still not convinced of Mike's arguments about the use of the name Cygnus -- are we supposed to believe that there were three separate classes of starship that looked completely identical? If they're identical, that means they're the same class -- the Hermes class! -- Dan Carlson 21:39, 14 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::::::: Except, there is no visual evidence of the Cygnus and Monoceros classes in the Manual. Therefore, we don't really know if they're identical. The primary source clearly says it's a Cygnus class. It also doesn't explain what Mark-VIIb means, so any theory that all these ships look the same or are simply subclasses of eachother is mere speculation, and is even further from canon than simply quoting the Manual! -- Harry 22:49, 27 Sep 2004 (CEST) ::::I've come to agree that the class name is the result of an interpretation that might be 'correct' but might not, so it is a speculation better left unmade here. I've withdrawn my accuracy note. ::::I agree, these classes have definitely been seen onscreen, so they are well deserving of their own articlespace. I've mentioned this at Talk:Canon. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 01:19, 20 Jul 2004 (CEST) Are there two Surak classes? The list lists Vulcan ships of the of the 22nd century as part of the federal class of the 24th century. Unless someone gives to me a good reason not to separate the ships into to separate articles by the weekend, I shall put them in separate articles. As an aside, I understand why two classes of starships arose named after Surak arose. Surak is a cool guy. I know a certain fascistic two-election-fixing war-of-aggression-starting theocrat who could truly benefit from the philosophy of Surak. --Ŭalabio 07:07, 2004 Dec 2 (CET) Ships from "Court Martial" The ships from (just qualified with numbers NCC-...) seen on a display screen behind Stone seem not included here or anywhere on this site. - Philoust123 15:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC) : Actually, they have. Here's what is on the chart, with parenthesis pointing to the correct page: :* NCC-1709 (USS Lexington) :* NCC-1831 ( ) :* NCC-1703 (USS Hood) :* NCC-1672 (USS Exeter) :* NCC-1664 ( ) :* NCC-1697 (NCC-1697) :* NCC-1701 ( ) :* NCC-1718 (NCC-1718) :* NCC-1685 (NCC-1685) :* NCC-1700 (USS Constitution) : Hopefully, that'll help you.--Tim Thomason 16:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Starship Deploy Status list from "The Measure of a man" There's a "Starship Deploy Status" list in the court room on Starbase 173, seen in . Unfortunately, the list is always out of focus and one cannot make out the names of the ships. The chart has 4 columns, the first one for the names of the ships, the second one seems to be for the registry, the third one - no idea, and the last one shows the status of the ships. (You can make out "Deep Space Exploration Sector XX" on Screenshot number 4, the four last ships on the list seem to be on the same mission) Maybe someone has the list somewhere, maybe it's in a book or magazine, don't know. Maybe it was seen in another episode? Those things have the tendency to show up again... I'll upload 5 screenshots of the list here, anyway. --Jörg 15:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC) File:Starship deploy status 1.jpg|1 File:Starship deploy status 2.jpg|2 File:Starship deploy status 3.jpg|3 File:Starship deploy status 4.jpg|4 File:Starship deploy status 5.jpg|5 :Michael Okuda does not have any info on these lists regarding the ships, registries, commanding officers. Here is a discussion about this, but I think Jörg knows about this. Any updates? http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3578/3346458142_847757dc2c_o.jpg Tom 15:26, March 28, 2011 (UTC) :I've updated the main image with an HD capture, and identified as many ship names as possible. - [[User:Aatrek|'Aatrek']] 23:38, December 10, 2012 (UTC) Cross listing :From talk:Odin, talk:Woden, talk:Arcos, talk:SS Vico: Odin is cross listed on both Federation starships, which notes that the Prime Directive is observed on these ships, and on "Civilian Federation starships", which notes that the PD is waived. These are obviously mutually exclusive. Which listing is correct? Starfleetjedi 06:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC) : Both. I suppose technically there should be a third "Starfleet starships" to differentiate between the PD and PD-void vessels. Personally, I would rather we not have the civilian list, which I questioned once before but cant seem to find the discussion about it, and was "overruled". --Alan 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC) :: According to Data: "The Odin was not a starship, which means that her crew is not bound by the Prime Directive." (25m 10s) Remark column I'm thinking notations linking to the bottom of the article would be better than a Remark column, as the Remark column has 7 entries for 200 plus starships. 31dot (talk) 14:22, November 18, 2012 (UTC) Choosing what's listed here Hello, how do you know if WEB Dubois or USGS Powell,by example, are federation civilian vessels ? Why others vessels are not noted on that article ? How did you choose ? C-IMZADI-4 (talk) 21:46, January 1, 2013 (UTC) : I'm guessing because the source of the in-joke naming is of Earth origin. --Alan (talk) 13:25, April 15, 2019 (UTC) "Civilian Federation starships" I was going to go into a long rant about how redundant this page title is: How does the term "Federation starships" not immediately suggest non-civilian origins whereas we would need to qualify this article with the term civilian? "Federation" would be everybody, and "Starfleet" would be Starfleet, so Federation starships would equal civilian and Starfleet, while Starfleet would only be Starfleet, therefore "civilian Federation" seems terribly redundant. The only real dialogue reference I can find that takes it that extra step was stated by Telek R'Mor in , where he stated: "You say you are a Federation ship. Are you a Starfleet vessel?" But of course, every instance I can find of the use of the term "Federation starship" refers to a "Starfleet vessel" – which would also be the alternative term to Federation starship, but then that would introduce United Earth vessels into the mix, which we don't want. I guess my point it, a Federation starship is a Federation starship, and making the distinction of whether it is "Starfleet"/"civilian" can be easily made in one of the columns on the table of the ship list. --Alan (talk) 13:25, April 15, 2019 (UTC) :Your self-proclaimed rant makes complete and perfect sense, so '''support' -- Capricorn (talk) 02:43, April 17, 2019 (UTC)